Decreased visual detection during subliminal stimulation.

What is the perceptual fate of invisible stimuli-are they processed at all and does their processing have consequences for the perception of other stimuli? As has been shown previously in the somatosensory system, even stimuli that are too weak to be consciously detected can influence our perception: Subliminal stimulation impairs perception of near-threshold stimuli and causes a functional deactivation in the somatosensory cortex. In a recent study, we showed that subliminal visual stimuli lead to similar responses, indicated by an increase in alpha-band power as measured with electroencephalography (EEG). In the current study, we investigated whether a behavioral inhibitory mechanism also exists within the visual system. We tested the detection of peripheral visual target stimuli under three different conditions: Target stimuli were presented alone or embedded in a concurrent train of subliminal stimuli either at the same location as the target or in the opposite hemifield. Subliminal stimuli were invisible due to their low contrast, not due to a masking procedure. We demonstrate that target detection was impaired by the subliminal stimuli, but only when they were presented at the same location as the target. This finding indicates that subliminal, low-intensity stimuli induce a similar inhibitory effect in the visual system as has been observed in the somatosensory system. In line with previous reports, we propose that the function underlying this effect is the inhibition of spurious noise by the visual system.

Invisible visual stimuli elicit increases in alpha-band power.

The cerebral cortex responds to stimuli of a wide range of intensities. Previous studies have demonstrated that undetectably weak somatosensory stimuli cause a functional deactivation or inhibition in somatosensory cortex. In the present study, we tested whether invisible visual stimuli lead to similar responses, indicated by an increase in EEG alpha-band power-an index of cortical excitability. We presented subliminal and supraliminal visual stimuli after estimating each participant's detection threshold. Stimuli consisted of peripherally presented small circular patches that differed in their contrast to a background consisting of a random white noise pattern. We demonstrate that subliminal and supraliminal stimuli each elicit specific neuronal response patterns. Supraliminal stimuli evoked an early, strongly phase-locked lower-frequency response representing the evoked potential and induced a decrease in alpha-band power from 400 ms on. By contrast, subliminal visual stimuli induced an increase of non-phase-locked power around 300 ms that was maximal within the alpha-band. This response might be due to an inhibitory mechanism, which reduces spurious visual activation that is unlikely to result from external stimuli.